About Me

My photo
Business, Free Enterprise and Constitutional Issues; Pro-Life and Pro Second Amendment. Susan Lynn is a member of the Tennessee General Assembly. She serves as Chairman of the Consumer and Human Resources subcommittee and on the Finance Ways and Means Committee. She holds a BS in economics and a minor in history.

Friday, July 20, 2007

Shared Parenting

Rep. Stacey Campfield discusses shared parenting on his blog today.

I'd really like to know your thoughts about this. So far, the bill has never made it out of committee and I am not on the committee that hears the bill...but just the same, I'd like to know your thoughts.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Huzzah. Three cheers for your leading this effort. To be emotionally healthy children need to be raised by both of their parents. Children have a RIGHT to BOTH of their parents.

In an ordinary divorce proceeding, which is the vast majority of all divorces, the courts should only be authorized to partition the parenting authority and time of the parents approximately equally.

There should be two exceptions this presumption. The first for those parents who do not wish to be involved with their children. The second for those parents who are unfit or dangerous towards their children.

There are cases where a parent just does not want to be involved. When the parent is absent or uninterested, the law should presume that the involved parent be given sole custody. Cases in this class should be heard on just this issue. A simple filing by the uninvolved parent that they wish to be active in their child's life coupled with active parenting using the parenting time given should be sufficient to defeat this presumption and move the cases into the mainstream.

Unfortunately, there are also cases where a parent is unfit and a danger to their child. These cases should presume primary parenting to the fit parent with supervised visitation by the dangerous parent. Since an inalienable right of the child and the parent is being assaulted, the cases should be heard by judge and jury with a high standard of evidence required. Ideally such cases would he handled strictly by a states child protective services department.

Forty to fifty years ago, the courts were very biased against women getting custody. That situation was corrected, but was over compensated to the point that now the courts are very biased against men. Its time to center the pendulum.

It is not enough to just pass laws for 'shared parenting'. The court process must also be revised. The divorce courts of Louisiana and many other states are notoriously corrupt. 'Home cooking' is sometimes the rule rather than the exception.

There are two simple fixes to this issue. First, the judges/courts should be required to publish the relevant statistics relative to custody cases. This information should be used by the parents to recuse judges that are biased against their gender (less than 30% primary custody to either gender). The right of voire dire is allowed in criminal trials, it should also be allowed in cases involving the most important decision in a set of parents lives.

Second, the custody process should be removed from the courts. We don't sue to get married, or to choose schools, or for many other of the major decisions in our lives. Qualified professionals should be certified by the state to decide custody cases. The only court involvement should be the courts helping the parents to select a mutually agreeable professional if the parents can not agree.



Nicholas James
President, LaDads
president@ladads.org
www.ladads.org
www.ladads.info

P.S. When the Question was put to the Mass. voters, the voters approved of shared parenting by an 86% yes vote. The vote was overwhelming in both the liberal voting areas (slightly lower) and the conservative voting areas.

Anonymous said...

85% yes vote. for Shared parenting in Mass.

Granted, its a liberal state, but the voting percentages were solid across all groups. The percentages were actually slightly lower in the liberal precincts.


http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/site/ballot.php

Anonymous said...

There are alot of parents out there who should not be raising a child period.

Anonymous said...

Please help support the rights of those fathers who love their children and are the more stable parent have at least the minimum option to have 50-50 parenting of their children. It is not right that just because you are the "mother" you have control over the father by dangling his child in front of him. You can not reason with vindictive and mentally unstable people and having the chance to take this to court and present evidence with all things being equal would be great. I am a mother and my ex is given every opportunity to see his daughter and I have not right to keep her from him-period.

Anonymous said...

In Tennessee, Fathers who have children out of wedlock have NO rights to their children. They have to go to juvenile court and see a referee (makes it sound like a competition) to even get the minimum visitation. There should be 50/50 unless one of the parents a. are mentally/physically unable to parent 50% of the time b. they do not want their child or the 50% commitment. The state has created a scenerio that allows vindictive mothers to alientate, abuse, neglect and control thier children without any recourse or protection by the father. No one should be allowed to keep you from seeing your own children unless you are a convicted felon or documented abuser. Children need their fathers and the chance to benefit from stable environments not 2 parents that bicker or compete over them. This creates unstable and manipulative children.

Anonymous said...

Anyone knows the status of bill 1460?
I don't see any reason to discriminate anyone.

What kind of people are opposing this common sense law?

Anonymous said...

The burden of failed marriage or bearing children should be on the parents, not on the children. Today's society does a poor job of raising parents and parental values. The idea of family as portrayed in the Bible is shunned by most of the divorce population in the US claiming Christianity as its religion. What hypocrisy! Not only does is discredit Christianity, it insures that the next generation will do exactly the same to their children. It is a vicious cycle at the cost of the damage to children.

Parents be ashamed!

Anonymous said...

as a father, in tennessee ,who is going through a "battle" over my son, it's assumed [ wether married or not ] that when a child is born ,both parents have equal custody. when those parnets choose to seperate [ whatever the reason ]the state sees this as an opportunity to put another child into the system. why you ask? so they can PROFIT FROM IT. most of the time fathers are assigned the noncustodial name & position because idealy men make higher wages than women, so the state can set a higher child support claim, so the state can claim more federal funding from title IV . do you think the state is going to give up the millions its making off of destroying childerns lives? by helping the fight between seperating couples to continue, eveybody important gets rich, thats all of the people who receive funding from title IV. its in their "BEST INTREST" to keep them fighting. MEANWHILE THE CHILDS LIFE & HAPPINESS IS DESTROYED FOR PROFIT. [millershannon@yahoo.com

Anonymous said...

IN lIVINGSTON PARISH, LOUISIANA, A PARENT MUST BE PROVEN UNFIT. OTHERWISE CUSTODY SHOULD BE 50-50. HOWEVER, JUDGE ROBERT MORRISON CONTINUES TO RULE AGAINST FATHERS TIME AFTER TIME BECAUSE HE "DOES NOT BELIEVE IN 50 - 50. BY THE TIME THE FATHER HIRES AN ATTORNEY, PAYS THE RETAINER, GETS TO COURT, IS FORCED BY THE JUDGE TO MOVE OUT OF THE RESIDENCE HE HAS NO MONEY TO APPEAL THIS JUDGES UNLAWFUL DECISIONS. HE IS RUINING THE LIVES OF COUNTLESS FATHERS AND THERE HELPLESS CHILDREN. I HAVE BEEN IN HIS COURT NUMEROUS TIMES AND WITNESSED HIS DECISIONS AND IT HAPPENED TO MY FAMILY MEMBER.

Anonymous said...

Livingston parish people, are most judges unfair like this one? More info please.